11/05/2007 - Seafood industry – when madness prevails
WEEKEND FEATURE: Seafood industry – when madness prevails
WORLDWIDE Friday, May 11, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)
Poor fisherman! Poor processor! How can they sleep peacefully? No industry, with or without reason is caught in such mess of official and unofficial, governmental and non-governmental bodies trying to get in control. The fight for controlling this industry by different means is within reason resembling something close to madness. This is compounded with the threat of they influence they exercise over their own economic activities diminishing day by day.
In a perfect world local governments might exercise control over their fisheries and aquaculture industries, and agreements between countries might be managed by scientists as advisers, and administrated by regional fishery management organisations. Lobbyists and organisations with political, environmental, or other agendas or concerns, might be placed on the sidelines to voice their opinions.
However, distrust, open and hidden agendas, groups placing their interests over and above democratically elected bodies such as governments and parliaments incites actions such as boycotting of products, protests, and in some cases even more forceful actions used by groups not having the right powers granted them by democratic means. Militant groups are forcing their way into power, elected politicians are selling their moral principles, their ideology, friends and even soul, to get re-elected. These are all part of the modern world of pragmatism over ideals.
Australia portrays itself as an environmentally responsible nation, however, the government has found it easy to silence environmental lobbies by supporting them in fighting coastal inhabitants that still hunt whales. However, this is easy to do, since they never have been a whale-hunting nation. Science is shelved and the deep blue Howard Government aligns itself the politically correct groups, darkening a cloud on the country’s own mass slaughter and wastage of millions of kangaroos.
Mexican tuna fishers decided to change their fishing methods to reduce dolphin by-catch. However, this initiative was not for the sake of the dolphins, but to keep the door open to the lucrative and ever-hungry United States market. Only days ago, a three -judge panel from the Ninth Court of Appeals in San Francisco ratified the decision to prohibit sales of Mexican tuna in the US market with the “Dolphin Safe" label approved by the International Dolphin Conservation Programme (APICD).
WORLDWIDE Friday, May 11, 2007, 23:50 (GMT + 9)
Poor fisherman! Poor processor! How can they sleep peacefully? No industry, with or without reason is caught in such mess of official and unofficial, governmental and non-governmental bodies trying to get in control. The fight for controlling this industry by different means is within reason resembling something close to madness. This is compounded with the threat of they influence they exercise over their own economic activities diminishing day by day.
In a perfect world local governments might exercise control over their fisheries and aquaculture industries, and agreements between countries might be managed by scientists as advisers, and administrated by regional fishery management organisations. Lobbyists and organisations with political, environmental, or other agendas or concerns, might be placed on the sidelines to voice their opinions.
However, distrust, open and hidden agendas, groups placing their interests over and above democratically elected bodies such as governments and parliaments incites actions such as boycotting of products, protests, and in some cases even more forceful actions used by groups not having the right powers granted them by democratic means. Militant groups are forcing their way into power, elected politicians are selling their moral principles, their ideology, friends and even soul, to get re-elected. These are all part of the modern world of pragmatism over ideals.
Australia portrays itself as an environmentally responsible nation, however, the government has found it easy to silence environmental lobbies by supporting them in fighting coastal inhabitants that still hunt whales. However, this is easy to do, since they never have been a whale-hunting nation. Science is shelved and the deep blue Howard Government aligns itself the politically correct groups, darkening a cloud on the country’s own mass slaughter and wastage of millions of kangaroos.
Mexican tuna fishers decided to change their fishing methods to reduce dolphin by-catch. However, this initiative was not for the sake of the dolphins, but to keep the door open to the lucrative and ever-hungry United States market. Only days ago, a three -judge panel from the Ninth Court of Appeals in San Francisco ratified the decision to prohibit sales of Mexican tuna in the US market with the “Dolphin Safe" label approved by the International Dolphin Conservation Programme (APICD).
So much for APICD. The Agreement on APICD, a legally binding, multilateral agreement, which entered into force in February 1999, established this programme to succeed the 1992 Agreement on the Conservation of Dolphins (the La Jolla Agreement). However, the agreement has only been ratified by Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Vanuatu, and Venezuela. The US has not ratified this agreement and by definition then, they stand judgement-free to decide what they deem is correct within their own law.
The tuna case was reported this week here on FIS.com, whereby : “The Ninth Court agreed with what the Federal District Court stipulated after acknowledging that the Secretary of Commerce, Donald Evans, at the time, “had been inadequately influenced” by political and not ecological issues when the decision was taken to lift the embargo in 2002.
The ruling imposes a virtual embargo on US tuna imports originating from Mexican fleets and from other countries that surround dolphins, swimming among the tuna, with nets for tuna harvesting.
The demand against Mexican tuna imports started in December 2002, when the Mexican tuna industry recommenced their exports to the US market with the "Dolphin Safe" label specifying their tuna was caught without causing a threat to dolphins.
After the embargo established from 1990 to 1999 for environmental reasons, the ecological group, Earth Island, sued Evans for “reducing levels” established by a dolphin protection law.
In January 2003, Telthon Henderson, the judge who in 1990 accepted the argument by the ecological organisation, again passed judgement as the group being in the right and assured that even though the dolphins survive the harvesting, they do suffer from “stress.””
In other words, by finding the right groups such as Earth Island, they place the jobs of maybe thousands of Mexican workers at risk. Not because they are killing dolphins, but because they are “stressing” the mammals. The correct measure would have been for the US to ratify the agreement and make international treaties and agreements monitor Mexican tuna vessels, protecting the dolphins from being slaughtered. The definition “stress” is a word that many US environmentalists will put to their chest. There is not many large fishing operations in the world not putting stress in one or another way on marine mammals.
The Norwegian herring fishery is disturbing killer whales feeding on herring. International krill fisheries are disrupting the quiet of the pristine Antarctic waters where whales for many years have been living with little disturbance from fishing vessels. So the same judge should be able to stop the import of both herring and krill oil. Creative anti-fishery groups are being given new opportunities to use US Law as jurisprudence to attack those living of off fishing or processing of seafood.
The tuna case was reported this week here on FIS.com, whereby : “The Ninth Court agreed with what the Federal District Court stipulated after acknowledging that the Secretary of Commerce, Donald Evans, at the time, “had been inadequately influenced” by political and not ecological issues when the decision was taken to lift the embargo in 2002.
The ruling imposes a virtual embargo on US tuna imports originating from Mexican fleets and from other countries that surround dolphins, swimming among the tuna, with nets for tuna harvesting.
The demand against Mexican tuna imports started in December 2002, when the Mexican tuna industry recommenced their exports to the US market with the "Dolphin Safe" label specifying their tuna was caught without causing a threat to dolphins.
After the embargo established from 1990 to 1999 for environmental reasons, the ecological group, Earth Island, sued Evans for “reducing levels” established by a dolphin protection law.
In January 2003, Telthon Henderson, the judge who in 1990 accepted the argument by the ecological organisation, again passed judgement as the group being in the right and assured that even though the dolphins survive the harvesting, they do suffer from “stress.””
In other words, by finding the right groups such as Earth Island, they place the jobs of maybe thousands of Mexican workers at risk. Not because they are killing dolphins, but because they are “stressing” the mammals. The correct measure would have been for the US to ratify the agreement and make international treaties and agreements monitor Mexican tuna vessels, protecting the dolphins from being slaughtered. The definition “stress” is a word that many US environmentalists will put to their chest. There is not many large fishing operations in the world not putting stress in one or another way on marine mammals.
The Norwegian herring fishery is disturbing killer whales feeding on herring. International krill fisheries are disrupting the quiet of the pristine Antarctic waters where whales for many years have been living with little disturbance from fishing vessels. So the same judge should be able to stop the import of both herring and krill oil. Creative anti-fishery groups are being given new opportunities to use US Law as jurisprudence to attack those living of off fishing or processing of seafood.
Regional Fishery Management Organisations (RFMOs) are doing their best to advise and control fisheries in the areas they are meant to manage. Environmentalist groups are calling for their right to help control fisheries. Some, such as the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace have adopted very mature ways of getting their views across. They are focusing on ways in which responsibility and sustainability can improve the economic situation for fishers whose needs are satisfied by fishing, not only today, but also for the future.
In the North Atlantic co-operation between environmental groups, fishermen’s associations, and governments has reduced illegal fishing considerably. The winners in the end are the fish stocks and the vessels operating legally within the framework drafted by Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, and by governments.
In the North Atlantic co-operation between environmental groups, fishermen’s associations, and governments has reduced illegal fishing considerably. The winners in the end are the fish stocks and the vessels operating legally within the framework drafted by Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, and by governments.
A similar approach by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) in the Antarctic region has resulted in a sharp drop in illegal fishery operations targeting Patagonian toothfish. Whether the decision handed down by the US judges will better tuna conditions,is an open question. If the market for Mexican tuna is made smaller, the vessels may feel forced to use other more efficient fishing methods, giving less attention to dolphin safety. There are currently no problems in selling tuna on the world market, but Mexican canneries will lose their largest market. Before then, however, tuna will be sold, and is this a victory for Earth Island?
This is just an example of the madness prevailing over the economic activities of fishers. It is not enough to have the Dolphin Safe label on tuna cans. In Sweden an organisation promoting and certifying ecological food products decided to introduce a new label certifying products to be climate friendly. This label will not have standards set by an international agreement ratified by nations. But it is probably encouraged by the somehow success of the certification by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), which is a self-described: "independent, global, non-profit organisation whose role is to recognise, via a certification programme, well-managed fisheries and to harness consumer preference for seafood products bearing the MSC label of approval.”
They state that their certification is based on the following three principles:
Principle 1: The condition of the fish stocks. This examines if there are enough fish to ensure that the fishery. is sustainable.
Principle 2: The impact of the fishery on the marine environment. This examines the effect that fishing has on the immediate marine environment including other non-target fish species, marine mammals and seabirds.
Principle 3: The fishery management systems. This principle evaluates the rules and procedures that are in place, as well as how they are implemented, to maintain a sustainable fishery and to ensure that the impact on the marine environment is minimised.”
So far 22 fisheries have been MSC-approved worldwide. The number of individual companies under each fishery is not impressive, with the exception of the Alaska Pollock fisheries. North Sea herring has been approved, but very few companies of many hundreds involved in trading this product have applied for accreditation to be able to use MSC logo. A good question is whether the MSC label is worth anything at all. It offers no international protection, and has even less value legally than the “Dolphin Safe” label disapproved by the US Court.
This is just an example of the madness prevailing over the economic activities of fishers. It is not enough to have the Dolphin Safe label on tuna cans. In Sweden an organisation promoting and certifying ecological food products decided to introduce a new label certifying products to be climate friendly. This label will not have standards set by an international agreement ratified by nations. But it is probably encouraged by the somehow success of the certification by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), which is a self-described: "independent, global, non-profit organisation whose role is to recognise, via a certification programme, well-managed fisheries and to harness consumer preference for seafood products bearing the MSC label of approval.”
They state that their certification is based on the following three principles:
Principle 1: The condition of the fish stocks. This examines if there are enough fish to ensure that the fishery. is sustainable.
Principle 2: The impact of the fishery on the marine environment. This examines the effect that fishing has on the immediate marine environment including other non-target fish species, marine mammals and seabirds.
Principle 3: The fishery management systems. This principle evaluates the rules and procedures that are in place, as well as how they are implemented, to maintain a sustainable fishery and to ensure that the impact on the marine environment is minimised.”
So far 22 fisheries have been MSC-approved worldwide. The number of individual companies under each fishery is not impressive, with the exception of the Alaska Pollock fisheries. North Sea herring has been approved, but very few companies of many hundreds involved in trading this product have applied for accreditation to be able to use MSC logo. A good question is whether the MSC label is worth anything at all. It offers no international protection, and has even less value legally than the “Dolphin Safe” label disapproved by the US Court.
However, there are different views in the industry on such labels. Tim Kosteczka ,responsible for quality control in the German fine-foods company Füngers Feinkost GmbH & Co told FIS.com: “There are no visible results for our company yet, because we are not using the logo on our products.”
Andreas Kremer of Deutsche See GmbH explained a more active use of MSC accreditation to FIS.com: ”Deutsche See has got the basic principal of sustainability in the company strategy. The company fully supports the Marine Stewardship Council. We will start a MSC-Range in September with 20 certified MSC-Products mainly based on, for example, Alaska-pollack, hoki, herring, salmon. The company is very positive about the future success of MSC-certified fish-products in the German market and we intend to enlarge the MSC-Range step by step within the next months and years. This includes a number of species like cod, haddock and pike-perch."
The decision handed down by the US court is in fact reducing the value of labels to a mere promotional stunt. Logos guaranteeing that fish are caught in sustainable fisheries or in an environmentally friendly way are not a powerful tool. The court decision points to the need of forging international agreements between countries.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation has started to move their slow bureaucratic body in this matter. However, truths set by independent organisations will always be coloured by their ideology and goal, whehter they are hidden or transparent. The fishing industry, until real international treaties are put in place, certifying what is sustainable, acceptable fishing practises governed and controlled by accepted fishery management organisations on an international, regional or national level, will continue to have madness prevail. This will continue as long as everybody continues to want their say in the matter, but continue to implement any means they can in order to have their control over them.
By Terje Engoewww.fis.com
Andreas Kremer of Deutsche See GmbH explained a more active use of MSC accreditation to FIS.com: ”Deutsche See has got the basic principal of sustainability in the company strategy. The company fully supports the Marine Stewardship Council. We will start a MSC-Range in September with 20 certified MSC-Products mainly based on, for example, Alaska-pollack, hoki, herring, salmon. The company is very positive about the future success of MSC-certified fish-products in the German market and we intend to enlarge the MSC-Range step by step within the next months and years. This includes a number of species like cod, haddock and pike-perch."
The decision handed down by the US court is in fact reducing the value of labels to a mere promotional stunt. Logos guaranteeing that fish are caught in sustainable fisheries or in an environmentally friendly way are not a powerful tool. The court decision points to the need of forging international agreements between countries.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation has started to move their slow bureaucratic body in this matter. However, truths set by independent organisations will always be coloured by their ideology and goal, whehter they are hidden or transparent. The fishing industry, until real international treaties are put in place, certifying what is sustainable, acceptable fishing practises governed and controlled by accepted fishery management organisations on an international, regional or national level, will continue to have madness prevail. This will continue as long as everybody continues to want their say in the matter, but continue to implement any means they can in order to have their control over them.
By Terje Engoewww.fis.com
No comments:
Post a Comment